misconceptions

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The evidence has already been shown to you.

no it wasn't

Can you name any of the hundreds of eye witnesses to the fraud who provided sworn affidavits

Sure:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote:[quote]Into the Night wrote:The evidence has already been shown to you.

"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):
"It's such a shame. This is a democracy," Daryl Brooks, who said he was a GOP poll watcher, said at the press conference, held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philadelphia. "They did not allow us to see anything. Was it corrupt or not? But give us an opportunity as poll watchers to view all the documents — all of the ballots."
Mr. Brooks is a convicted sex offender, isn't a resident of Philadelphia (comes from New Jersey) and no, has not convinced a Judge of anything.

Then why did you deny that it had been shown to you? Is it because you simply refused to look at it?

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote:[quote]Into the Night wrote:The evidence has already been shown to you.

"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):
"It's such a shame. This is a democracy," Daryl Brooks, who said he was a GOP poll watcher, said at the press conference, held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philadelphia. "They did not allow us to see anything. Was it corrupt or not? But give us an opportunity as poll watchers to view all the documents — all of the ballots."
Mr. Brooks is a convicted sex offender, isn't a resident of Philadelphia (comes from New Jersey) and no, has not convinced a Judge of anything.

Then why did you deny that it had been shown to you? Is it because you simply refused to look at it?

Yes Daryl Brooks, convicted sex offender and the President's teams #1 witness that "They did not allow us to see anything." was duly noted.

It's surprising you would identify THAT as IT.

Yes that was shown to me and whole world at none less than 4 seasons landscaping.

A convicted felon didn't see anything.

Got it.

Would you like to trot out some "evidence" that the Earth is flat? It's likely a lot more credible.

How about you, Mr. All Questions and no Answers lil' Tucker, actually make a statement and answer a question yourself.

What is your method of arriving at your assumptions about what is true.
Which is what this topic is about.

I already shared mine: I follow the scientific method of assuming the most probable scenario is true. If something is highly unlikely I assume it is not true.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):

I get it, this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one. We have many hundreds more to go through so let's not waste time.

Which one do you want to discuss next? Pick one that resonates with you.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):

I get it, this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one. We have many hundreds more to go through so let's not waste time.

Which one do you want to discuss next? Pick one that resonates with you.

That was the #1, first choice of someone other than me.

IBdaMann wrote:
Which one do you want to discuss ....

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):

I get it, this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one. We have many hundreds more to go through so let's not waste time.

Which one do you want to discuss next? Pick one that resonates with you.

That was the #1, first choice of someone other than me.

Right, I get it, this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one. We have many hundreds more to go through so let's not waste time.

Which one do you want to discuss next? Pick one that resonates with you.

I already presented one that did not resonate with me.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):

I get it, this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one. We have many hundreds more to go through so let's not waste time.

Which one do you want to discuss next? Pick one that resonates with you.

That was the #1, first choice of the party advancing this ridiculous theory.
So that's the one to discuss.

You have nothing to say. As usual.

So I guess that's it.

IBdaMann wrote:...this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...this particular witness does not resonate with you. OK, move on to the next one.

Despite your transparent attempt to simple be a troll

tmiddles wrote:
you reveal your actual method of fact finding:

tmiddles wrote:
1- Look at a reference to find the truth you want. If you find it Great! If not go to step two
2- Look for another reference should the first reference contradict or otherwise frustrate your chosen truth.
3- Repeat as necessary

There is a name for this. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS

tmiddles wrote:
This is not how a court of law works unfortunately for both you and Trump.

tmiddles wrote:
If your very best argument is total crap you get tossed.

Troll on lil'Tucker.